Women in fantasy

[Mindfire]

I have said absolutely nothing about not needing men. I also said nothing about ignoring them. I said that if they aren't receptive, I leave them for someone else in order to preserve my own sanity. I've tried to be as detailed and specific about this as I possibly can, so I really don't understand your insistence on projecting all of feminism's perceived problems onto me, using language that does not reflect what I've described, and make them my responsibility to fix. I'm not going to evangelize ALL the men even if they don't want to listen to anything I want to say. I'm going to do what I can.

I didn't mean you in particular. That's my diagnosis of feminism at large. Don't take offense. If I seem to be blaming you, it's only because you're the only feminist I've ever met (in a manner of speaking) who'll even make a token attempt at real dialogue, and I'm probably just letting off all the steam at once. Apologies for the collateral damage.

 

[Zero Angel]

I'm not sure I agree with your diagnosis of feminism as a whole, Mindfire; instead, I think that there are two types of feminists: 1) the one that you mentioned, which I hope are an outspoken minority, and (2) feminists that want equality without oppression/retribution to men.

Men, I think, especially have a tendency of hearing "feminist" and thinking the first of the two. On the other hand, many in the second group would probably not self-identify as feminists, and really, anyone that grew up on Disney should fall in the second group, including me.

 

[Mindfire]

I'm not sure I agree with your diagnosis of feminism as a whole, Mindfire; instead, I think that there are two types of feminists: 1) the one that you mentioned, which I hope are an outspoken minority, and (2) feminists that want equality without oppression/retribution to men.

Men, I think, especially have a tendency of hearing "feminist" and thinking the first of the two. On the other hand, many in the second group would probably not self-identify as feminists, and really, anyone that grew up on Disney should fall in the second group, including me.

Feminists who want "revenge" are definitely the minority, usually fringe radical groups. But my "diagnosis" wasn't about that. It was about how self-identified feminists in general tend to just complain about things with each other instead of actually engaging men in the conversation. Some go so far as to actively exclude men from the conversation, which I think is counterproductive. Those that do this have some overlap with the "revenge" group, but the two are still distinct. The "exclusionists" are generally a larger sect than the "retributionists".

 

[Mindfire]

Now for something entirely different. Where exactly does appreciation of the female form or even sexual attraction cross the line into objectification? I think it's easy to make the issue a false dichotomy between shameless objectification and "no sex or even sexual thoughts EVAR!", but there's got to be a middle ground here somewhere. I'm particularly interested in responses from female members.

 

[Steerpike]

It was about how self-identified feminists in general tend to just complain about things with each other instead of actually engaging men in the conversation. Some go so far as to actively exclude men from the conversation, which I think is counterproductive. Those that do this have some overlap with the "revenge" group, but the two are still distinct. The "exclusionists" are generally a larger sect than the "retributionists".

Having spent time with many self-identified feminists over the year, I still think this is a minority. Most of those I've known are quite the opposite, and when you consider the number of people in the general population who would identify themselves are feminist, I think it is a small minority that you're talking about.

 

[Zero Angel]

Yeah, my mom was a feminist of the type that likes to complain without motivation and I grew up my whole life hearing her complain about men.

On the other hand, most people complain about what bothers them without trying to change it. Look at almost every job ever. There's that old joke:

"Oh, you hate your job? There's a club for that: it's called EVERYBODY. We meet at the bar​

Where is the line drawn for most people on what they can tolerate or even enjoy reading? I mean, I can tolerate women being portrayed in lesser roles or not having much proactive qualities (unless they're the protagonist!), but I cannot read something that is actively misogynistic (i.e. abuse, unwilling domination, and R).

Note: Remember to abbreviate things so the thread doesn't get shut down for violating the almighty Google search term algorithms.

 

[saellys]

It varies on a case-by-case basis, of course. Also, a female character can be objectified (literally, "treated as an object") without being sexualized, most commonly if she is the only female character in a given work and is robbed of agency. It's that much more egregious if she also only exists for a) the sexual gratification of the men around her, and b) the arousal of readers.

For those of you who can stomach Anita Sarkeesian, her latest "Tropes vs. Women" video is about damsels in distress in video games, and treads some of this ground as well.

 

[Mythopoet]

As a new female member of this community, I guess I'll jump into the conversation. Just to give myself a bit of a background in this discussion, I'm a wife and mom of 5, a Catholic and I'm not going to hide the fact that I think the feminist movement (NOT feminists as individuals) is evil and damaging to society. I'm not going to apologize for that belief. If you want to argue with me about it you can message me.

Now for something entirely different. Where exactly does appreciation of the female form or even sexual attraction cross the line into objectification? I think it's easy to make the issue a false dichotomy between shameless objectification and "no sex or even sexual thoughts EVAR!", but there's got to be a middle ground here somewhere. I'm particularly interested in responses from female members.

The problem is that there isn't just one line to cross. One of the lines is intent. Did the writer intend to objectify or not? Then there is the question of how the depiction in question is implemented. That's really a case by case question. Furthermore, I would argue that objectification isn't necessarily about sexuality. In my opinion casual sex objectifies all players, both men and women. But sex is certainly not the only context within which a person can be objectified. I think the real question when determining objectification is whether or not a person's human nature and in particular their free will is being in any way subverted or suppressed.

 

[saellys]

A writer can objectify a character without intending to. There's a link to an article about that back on page 42; the gist is that we've all been absorbing inaccurate and harmful narratives for so long that it's really, really hard to write anything else. Intent, or lack thereof, doesn't change the fact that objectification happens and is harmful.

 

[Jabrosky]

I'm just going to put her on my ignore list.

 

[saellys]

^ Harsh. She's contributing to the conversation, actually, even if she does think I'm destroying the fabric of society.

 

[Jabrosky]

^ Harsh. She's contributing to the conversation, actually, even if she does think I'm destroying the fabric of society.

I can only tolerate so much crazy.

 

[saellys]

Welcome to MS, Mythopoet! (No but seriously please stick around.)

 

[Steerpike]

Jabrosky, let's not get into personal name calling. You've been on the forums long enough to know better. A generalized statement about a social movement that specifically avoids statements about individuals does not warrant a bunch of insults directed back at a specific person.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Ok. So as some of you have undoubtedly noticed, this thread derailed with a personal insult. Personal insults are not tolerated.

Whether or not you agree with, or have disdain for a member's perspective, is within your prerogative. However, the discussion must not be taken to a personal level like we saw above. Mythic Scribes is a community that fosters tolerance for differing viewpoints.

Please return to the conversation in a constructive manner and thank you to those members who remained on point and focused without resorting to degradation of another member or inciting behavior.

 

[Ophiucha]

It varies on a case-by-case basis, of course. Also, a female character can be objectified (literally, "treated as an object") without being sexualized, most commonly if she is the only female character in a given work and is robbed of agency. It's that much more egregious if she also only exists for a) the sexual gratification of the men around her, and b) the arousal of readers.

For those of you who can stomach Anita Sarkeesian, her latest "Tropes vs. Women" video is about damsels in distress in video games, and treads some of this ground as well.

I saw that video - I don't tend to like her method of delivery, but I think her bringing up the wife/daughter kill/damsel dichotomy was pretty interesting, particularly in regards to your comment above about objectification. The daughters are often non-sexually objectified, prizes to be won or item to be stolen back, but are usually too young to be sexualized (and even if they are sexy and older, the protagonist does not sexualize them since he is her father).

One thing it does bring up is how rare it is to have a female character in a story with a male protagonist who exists entirely out of the context of the male characters' immediate family (or would-be family). Female characters are love interests, mothers, daughters, or sisters. It's really rare for there to be a female character who has a platonic, non-familial relationship with any of the male characters, and the ones that do are usually very blatantly sexualized, playing the role of the 'hooker with a heart of gold' or similar, openly and purposely sexual character. (Too sexual for them to be a suitable love interest, one might say.)

Female characters who don't 'belong' to the male protagonist, be it through love or blood, are rare. And regardless of whether or not they are sexy, they are still made into objects by their relationship to the protagonist. They're not "Mary Anne", they're "Billy's sister" or "John's wife".

 

[Mythopoet]

She's contributing to the conversation, actually, even if she does think I'm destroying the fabric of society.

I don't think any such thing about you. I don't know you. I think that about the organized movement called feminism. But again, I didn't intend to debate my personal beliefs here (unless it becomes "on topic") and I'd be more than happy to discuss my reasons with anyone who wants to privately. I merely meant to state clearly where I am coming from as I enter the discussion.

I don't make judgements about people I don't know. (I find the best way to go through life is to give everyone the benefit of the doubt until there are strong reasons for not doing so.) I'd just as soon be ignored by someone who judges me based on so little.

 

[Mythopoet]

Back on topic: I'd be interested in specific examples where you all feel women are being objectified in fantasy. I'm not sure that I've come across any in my own reading.

 

[Steerpike]

Back on topic: I'd be interested in specific examples where you all feel women are being objectified in fantasy. I'm not sure that I've come across any in my own reading.

You could always read the Gor novels from the 80s

 

[Feo Takahari]

I don't think any such thing about you. I don't know you. I think that about the organized movement called feminism. But again, I didn't intend to debate my personal beliefs here (unless it becomes "on topic") and I'd be more than happy to discuss my reasons with anyone who wants to privately. I merely meant to state clearly where I am coming from as I enter the discussion.

I don't make judgements about people I don't know. (I find the best way to go through life is to give everyone the benefit of the doubt until there are strong reasons for not doing so.) I'd just as soon be ignored by someone who judges me based on so little.

If you said "Libertarians are destroying the fabric of society," you couldn't just leave it at that--we'd all go "WTF?" and demand that you explain. Don't leave us hanging here.

(I don't typically call myself a feminist, but I'm close enough to the movement to be absolutely baffled.)